Announcement

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:34 AM

Police vs Press

Much is made of the difference in the 2 versions of Schwartz story. Recently on here it’s been claimed that The Star version was the more likely than the police version but this makes little sense. Context is all important.

Swanson’s synthesis of the 30th September LSPS interview - written on Oct 19th

“12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen [i.e. Ellen] Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at that hour on turning into Berner St from Commercial Road & had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway & the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road ‘Lipski’ & then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far. Schwartz cannot say whether the two men were together or known to each other. Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus describes the first man who threw the woman down: – age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. Second man, age 35, height 5 ft. 11 in., complexion fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand.”

The Star, October 1st.

“Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane. The reporter’s Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner’s English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man’s story was retold just as he had given it to the police. It is, in fact, to the effect that he saw the whole thing. It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner Street to others in Backchurch Lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner Street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man’s hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings. He described the man with the woman as about 30 years of age, rather stoutly built, and wearing a brown moustache. He was dressed respectably in dark clothes and felt hat. The man who came at him with a knife he also describes, but not in detail. He says he was taller than the other, but not so stout, and that his moustaches were red. Both men seem to belong to the same grade of society. The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man’s statement is not wholly accepted.”

Leman Street Station interview - This took place under police conditions with Schwartz fully prepared to talk and with a volunteer interpreter present. The Police had one aim - to catch the killer, so they had every incentive to get an accurate version of events. Schwartz would also have been aware that lying to the police could have consequences.

The Star interview - Schwartz was taken by surprise by a reporter and someone was found at random for interpreting duties and the interview took place in a house with whatever distractions there might have been. The interviewer was a reporter whose aim was also an exciting story that would help sell newspapers; he wasn’t trying to catch a killer; he was under no pressure apart from earning a living. Any discrepancies later pointed out could be put down to the language barrier so they were no real comebacks if his story had been proven inaccurate. And wouldn’t The Star have been quite happy to show the police in a poor light by apparently ‘uncovering’ things that the police had missed?

So two interviews, under different circumstances and conditions with different motivations going on.

So immediately we have the very obvious issue of two interpreters. The person that The Star used was already at the scene and so might simply have been the best available at the time which introduces an element of doubt about how competent he was. How good was his Hungarian? How good was his English? Perhaps he had very basic language skills? Enough to get by but no more maybe? The potential difficulties are obvious.

So…Schwartz story:

In neither does Schwartz say how far behind BS man he was when he accosted Stride(?) but as the distance from Commercial Road was short it can only have been a very few seconds before he arrived at a position where he decided to cross the street to avoid the confrontation.

Then in the LS version BS ‘pulls’ Stride into the street but in The Star he ‘pushes’ Stride into the yard. This again could be down to interpretation and the words ‘push’ and ‘pull.’ If the Star interpreter was less clear than the LS interpreter was, it’s understandable that they might have assumed that he meant that BS man ‘pushed’ her into the yard as the body was actually found inside the gates and pushing would have got her to the spot. Or there might have been an element of push and pull that Schwartz only saw part of if he wasn’t actually staring at the couple and instead he was looking in glances, trying to make his interest look less obvious to BS man. These are far more likely explanations than Schwartz giving two conflicting versions of the same event.

In the LS version after crossing the street he sees the second man lighting his pipe although he doesn’t specifically state which side of the street the second man was on. But when BS man calls out ‘Lipski’ he does so at the man on the ‘opposite side’ of the road - therefore the same side that Schwartz had crossed to. The statement also makes the assumption that BS man directed his ‘Lipski’ at Pipeman and if Pipeman wasn’t on the same side as Schwartz there would have been no uncertainty involved. So Schwartz and Pipeman were both on the opposite side of the road to the club.

Then we get to the greater discrepancies. In The Star version Schwartz crosses the road and then looked back after hearing a quarrel. He then said “just as he stepped from the kerb a second man…” So this implies that Schwartz was about to cross back so that he could head home along Fairclough Street. It’s then that he supposedly sees the second man coming out of the Lord Nelson pub unlike the LS version which has the man on the other side of the street. This second man then approaches BS man as if he’s going to intervene and Schwartz said that the man had a knife. Wouldn’t it be less likely that Pipeman would have been exiting the Lord Nelson pub a full 45 minutes after closing time? It’s difficult to reconcile the discrepancy which claims that Pipeman had a knife and that he was on the same side of street as BS man and that he advanced toward him though. So what’s the explanation? Maybe he told The Star’s interpreter that Pipeman was ‘across from the pub,’ or that he was ‘opposite the pub,’ but it was translated as ‘outside the pub’ therefore on the same side as the club?

-So did Schwartz change his story, or embellish it for The Star reporter or did he give a false version to the police but the truth to The Star?

I see no reason why he’d knowingly have given an inaccurate story to the police if he was willing to give a more ‘accurate’ version to the Press and it’s not difficult to imagine how these discrepancies might have happened when we consider the situation.

If Schwartz had intended to go to the police with a lie then you would assume that this wasn’t an evolving lie. He’d have had his story sorted before he got there so how could he have got it wrong requiring amendment's a short time later when talking to The Star? Or should we ask - how could the plotter’s tame interpreter have made these supposed errors? And let’s face it, this isn’t a complex story is it? He walks along a street behind a man who confronts a woman. He crosses the street to avoid them and sees a man lighting his pipe. The first man calls out Lipski in their direction and then the both leave the scene. How could he have missed out the knife? How could he have put the guy with the knife (Pipeman) on the other side of the road?

It’s not difficult to see which of the two is likeliest to be the inaccurate version via a possible combination poor translation and a bit of Press ‘sexing up,’ whether Schwartz was complicit in this or not.

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:35 AM

Lave

Eagle and Lave are often cited as confirmation of duplicity. Why didn’t they see each other? Eagle’s story is consistently told but what about Lave? Andrew has recently said that ‘Schwartz believers’ are reluctant to discuss Lave. I’m not. Let’s look at what we have.

Daily News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

Evening News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-1.00.

Evening Standard - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

Morning Advertiser - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found for 5 minutes or more.

The Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found.

Woodford Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found and for around 5 minutes.

So was he in the yard and street for 30 minutes, 10 minutes or 5 minutes? Great, another top drawer witness! Take your pick as to how long he might have been out there. And to when he went out there for that matter. Or did he simply get his time wrong? Naturally ‘Schwartz deniers’ (sorry, couldn’t resist it - and no, it’s not a name that I intend to continue with…tempting thought it is) will go for the longer time. Lave and Eagle either just missed each other or, when Eagle returned Lave had walked into the street and maybe a few yards toward Fairclough Street before strolling back. It was dark and Eagle just didn’t notice him. Simple. No Miss Marple required.

Isn’t it noticeable though that the witnesses most often quoted to support plots and mysteries are always the flakiest

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:36 AM

‘Not Very Loudly.’

Plots always require nitpicking and a perfect example of this is Schwartz use of the phrase ‘screamed but not very loudly.’ This is seen as a way of explaining how the plotters explained away why no one heard the incident. Not mentioning screaming in the first place might have been a better tactic for the plotters but hey, perhaps they didn’t think of telling their tame interpreter this? Or they could even have said that BS man put his hand over her mouth and pulled her into the yard? But ‘screamed but not very loudly’ isn’t the most logical of phrases is it? Who would have said such a thing?

I’d suggest a man that couldn’t speak English and who was communicating via an interpreter of unknown competence and whose words were being heard and written down by a journalist looking for an exciting a story as possible?

Time to move on from this non-point

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:37 AM

Goldstein The Nobody

Everything and everyone gets roped into the non-existent mystery…like Leon Goldstein for example. Goldstein played no part in this case. Zero. He is no more important than Mrs Fiddymont or Mog Cheeks or any number of other peripheral figures and yet mystery-seekers can’t leave this guy alone. Why? We know where he was going and where he’d been and it’s likely that the police checked his story out and they clearly had no interest in him but Goldstein has become the ripperological equivalent of a man in black. He was a nobody. Entirely unimportant. A distraction

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:45 AM

A few of points made by Michael that I want to respond to.

Michael said - “Ive been accused of insisting that the times are absolutely accurate as stated, which is false, I have insisted only that the times as they are given are not to be subjectively "corrected" in order to make some stories work.”

Me - So what is actually being said is - ‘I don’t assume that stated times are accurate but we shouldn’t consider their possible inaccuracy if it allows for an interpretation of events that I don’t agree with. And it’s me that will be the judge of any ‘motive’ behind any allowance for a margin for error.’

Is this a fair approach? Every single time in this case should be allowed a margin for error. Even if someone had a watch or looked at a clock. The fact that clocks weren’t all perfectly synchronised has to be accepted too.

And does Michael actually really accept that we can’t assume that times cannot be assumed accurate? Apparently not because he says this:

“There would be far less confusion if people were to start using the times by witnesses as the witness gave them.”

So we’re back to assuming that given times are accurate.

No one take this kind of thinking seriously as the poll on here showed; with everyone but one accepting that we have to allow margins for error.

////////////////////////////////////

Michael - Now, there is a small snippet by Lamb that many also don't factor into their own investigation..."I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body. I put a constable at the gate and told him not to let any one in or out. I then entered the club and, starting from the front door, examined the place. I turned my light on and had a look at the different persons there, and examined a number of their hands and also their clothing to see if I could detect any marks of blood. I did not take up each one's hand. I should say there were from 15 to 20 persons in the club-room on the ground floor. I then went into every room, including the one in which there was a stage, and I went behind it. A person was there who informed me he was the steward." Now, he said this about the yard when he arrived..."How many people were there in the yard? Witness. - I should think 20 or 30. Some of that number had followed me in."

So 20 -30 people in the yard, and he estimates another 15-20 on the ground floor when he enters the club. At just after 1am? Thats a lot more people than we are led to believe were there at that time, and it is on the ground floor of the club, inside, that he meets Louis. So Louis is now inside when everyone else is outside?

Me - Two estimations given to two different people added together by Michael to imply a larger figure.

Diemschitz, when asked, said that there were 20-30 in the yard but some of that number had come inside when Louis himself had. These were the 15-20 that Lamb counted. So this meant that in total there were around 30 members present in the club and in the yard. Is there any source that corroborated this figure with? Yes. William Wess, in his statement, said that the bulk of the members left at 11.30 but:

“From twenty to thirty members remained, some staying in the lecture-room and the others going downstairs. Of those upstairs a few continued the discussion, while the rest were singing. The windows of the lecture-room were partly open”

Under very difficult circumstances Lamb made a very decent estimate of the people that were there. I imagine that people were moving around talking about what went on. All perfectly normal behaviour in these circumstances. And how is Diemschitz being inside in any way strange? Probably having a brandy to calm his nerves after finding a body then running around the streets.

/////////////////////////

Michael - “Pc Lamb, Johnson and Mortimer do not "support" Diemshutz, bizarre that you have interpreted the information in such a convoluted way.

1. Louis stated he arrived at 1am

2. PC Lamb says he saw Eagle looking for help "just before 1am". Seeing the problem yet?”

Me - Yes, I can see the problem straight away; we all can. A highly selective use of that quote about Lamb. You always use the only quote that mentions ‘before 1.00.’ Why is that? Why do you ignore all of the others and zero in on this one? Let’s look:

The Telegraph: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road

Daily News: At about one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running to me, shouting

East London Advertiser: on Sunday morning when he was in Commercial-road, at about 1 o'clock

Morning Advertiser: About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road

The Times: About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning

And let’s remind ourselves….PC Lamb didn’t have a watch.

But on it goes…cherrypicking…nothing less.

Then…

Michael - Once again, if Lamb arrived just before or at 1, it is well known that a beat cop would regularly check time sources on his beat, then it is impossible for Louis to have arrived at that same time.

Me - Yet another example of this misuse of evidence being repeated because it serves a purpose. Fact - by the majority of quotes Lamb said ‘about 1.00,’ which means just before, exactly 1.00, or just after. Fact - He was estimating because he had no watch. Fact - we have no way of knowing how he estimated that time (specifically by what clock) Fact - as an estimation it could have been just before or just after 1.00 by that specific source. Fact - we can’t assume that he and Louis used the same clock. Fact - if they used different clocks we cannot assume that they were synchronised.

Therefore - fact - Louis and Lamb can in no way be said to contradict each other as Louis was quoting a clock that he saw that said 1.00 whilst Lamb was estimating a time from an unknown source. You can’t dismiss a given time (of unknown accuracy) with an estimation of a time.

//////////////////////

Michael - “3. Fanny Mortimer saw nothing on the street for 12:45, we dont know whether she was inside or outside at the time, but she reported nothing for that time.”

Me - Then how can her ‘reporting nothing’ be relevant? She could have been indoors. Fanny is useless as a witness because we don’t know when she was on her doorstep and when she was indoors.

////////////////////

Michael - “4. Fanny saw Leon at 12:55-12.56”

Me - No. We don’t know what time she saw Goldstein. No times are ever mentioned.

///////////////////

Michael - “5. Issac Kozebrodski said "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard ." Mr Heschberg said "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter. In the gateway two or three people had collected, and when I got there I saw a short, dark young woman lying on the ground with a gash between four and five inches long in her throat ". Spooner said "We had left a public- house in Commercial-road at closing time, midnight, and walked quietly to the point named. We stood outside the Beehive about twenty-five minutes, when two Jews came running along, calling out "Murder" and "Police." Those 3 statements suggest an approximate discovery time around 12:40-12:45am. This isnt disputable, Im not sure why you are trying to do so anyway.”

Me - Heschberg and Koz were estimating. Apparently Heschberg heard a psychic policeman blow his whistle before they knew about the murder. And yet again you quote 12.35 for Spooner but completely ignore the fact that he said that he’d arrived 5 minutes before lamb did. Which takes him to just after 1.00. More evidential cherrypicking.

Question - if Kozebrodski found out about the body from Louis at 12.40 (as he claimed) how did they manage to jog up and down Fairclough Street and arrive back with Spooner in tow at 12.35. Why are you selective as to which timing discrepancies bother you and which don’t?

////////////////

Michael - I dont believe the suggestion was that he saw Liz, only that based on his statement to the press he should have...he claimed that he had gone into Dutfield's Yard at 12.40am to get a breath of fresh air: "So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions."

He doesnt see Eagle, who said he arrived at 12:40, and apparently he didnt see Israel or BSM or Liz at 12:45 outside on the street. You know if people used the information available some of us wouldnt have to constantly post corrections about times and events the witnesses themselves gave.

Me - The irony in the above can’t be lost on regular posters. I’ll re-post these versions of what Lave did:

Daily News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

Evening News - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-1.00.

Evening Standard - He was in the yard and street from 12.30-12.40.

Morning Advertiser - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found for 5 minutes or more. (So 12.40-12.45)

The Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found.(So she went out at 12.40 but no mention of how long for)

Woodford Times - He was in the yard and street 20 minutes before the body was found and for around 5 minutes. (So 12.40-12.45)

If certain people abandoned the cherrypicking of evidence and viewed all of what’s available to us it’s hardly difficult to see how he could easily have missed Eagle (and vice versa)

It’s a sad state of affairs when these obvious points need making.

//////////////////////////

It’s hard to believe that no matter how much has been written on the subject of an Inquest and its aims that the following claim can still be made..

Michael - It is inconceivable that if Schwartz was believed as the Inquest was held he wouldnt be asked to make his statement there. His story involves the deceased and someone assaulting the deceased minutes before she is killed, it’s very germane to that proceeding if believed...or true. Yet, no sign of his statement in any format with the Inquest documentation.

Me - We can easily discover the aims of an inquest by reading The Coroner’s Act of 1887, it tells us very clearly what information it wants:

‘who the deceased was, and how, and where the deceased came by his death, and if he came by his death by murder and manslaughter, the persons, if any, the jury find to have been guilty of such a murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories to the murder.’

Who the deceased was? - This means an actual identification. It doesn’t mean “yes, that’s the woman that I saw.’ It was meant for someone that knew the deceased and could confirm her identity as Elizabeth Stride - Isreal Schwartz was of no use on this.
Where the deceased came by his/her death? - This was for the Doctor to confirm that the body hadn’t been moved. That the victim died where he/she was discovered by Diemschitz - Israel Schwartz was of no use on this.
How the deceased died? - This is a medical question to be answered by the doctor. - Israel Schwartz was of no use on this.
The identity of the killer? - Schwartz couldn’t name BS man or state that he was the killer therefore he was of no use on this.
They also had to establish when the murder took place but this wasn’t the time of death. It was purely the day of the murder - Israel Schwartz could make no meaningful contribution to this.

It also needs pointing out that it’s the coroner who decides who testified at an inquest and not the police.

Therefore Israel Schwartz absolutely was not vital to an inquest. He might have been called for background info as did occur with other witnesses at inquests but he wasn't (we can often see witness and wonder why they their testimony was taken. Witnesses could also turn up of their own volition and volunteer to testify I believe) What we know for certain though is that Schwartz didn’t not testify because the police didn’t trust him (which Michael would know if he’d read David Orsam’s articles on the subject where I have taken much of my information from…based on his sourced and fully backed up research and not guesswork. David also makes several speculated suggestions as to why Schwartz didn’t appear at the inquest) How can it be said that the police didn’t trust Schwartz…

His description of BS man was immediately circulated.

Abberline’s November 1st reports states that through October the police had been searching for someone called Lipski.

Swanson’s 19th October report for the Home Office shows no hint of doubt about Schwartz and Permanent Under Secretary Godfrey Lushington wrote that Swanson’s report ‘cast no doubt’ on the truth of Schwartz statement.

Home Secretary Henry Matthew’s wrote on October 27th that Schwartz statement mentioning Lipski ‘seems to furnish a clue which ought to be followed up,’ and asking Abberline to prepare a report for him.

On a copy of Swanson’s statement Godfrey Lushington wrote, comparing PC Smith’s evidence to Schwartz’s, ‘it is clearly more probable that the man whom Schwartz saw was the murderer.

In the Police Gazette, October 19th there was a description of the man seen by Schwartz and on the same day the same description was recorded in Swanson’s report proving that this was a authorised description of the probable murderer (the man seen by Schwartz)

Swanson also wrote a ‘Comparison of the descriptions given of the men who were observed near the scene at the time of the several murders’ which has two columns on the men seen by Schwartz.

So very clearly the police took Schwartz seriously as a witness. All that we have in the way of evidence of dissent is the report in the Star of October 2nd but closer reading of it shows that it certainly doesn’t prove that the police disbelieved him. One possible explanation (and not the only one) is that some at Leman Street might have felt that the man that Schwartz saw wasn’t actually her killer. Abberline was based at Leman Street and he showed no sign of doubting Schwartz in November so the 2nd October newspaper story with no direct quote carries little or no weight.

That the police as a whole took Schwartz seriously is a fact.

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:46 AM

Isaac/ Isaacs/ Kozebrodski

I think that we might have a misinterpretation going on here in regard to Kozebrodski. Firstly though, a point on the Isaac/Isaacs thing. Do we know how well Diemschitz knew Kozebrodski apart from the fact that they were both club members? Could Louis be expected to know all members intimately? I used to go in a pub where a guy who I’d known to some extent for 20 years used to call me Mac (instead of Mike) It happens. What if Diemschitz had always assumed that his name was Isaacs when Isaac was actually his first name and Koz never bothered correcting him - treating it as a nickname? Second suggestion, an error of reporting. His first name Isaac was reported as a surname, Isaacs?

But my main point is about this:

“Now, Issac says he went out at the request OF Louis OR some other member”

This has been used to create confusion about who did or didn’t go. All that it means is that Kozebrodski couldn’t recall whose initial idea it was to go. That he went with Diemschitz is beyond dispute but he couldn’t recall if it was Diemschitz who suggested it or whether some other member had said something like “someone should go and look for a Constable.”

Why has this been turned into an issue? People sometimes get names wrong:

Chas. Andrew Cross

Alfred Malshaw

Robert Baul

Sargeant Baugham

Lewis Dienischitz

Julia Vanturney/ Van Turney

And those are only from the inquest testimonies (The Telegraph)

Kozebrodski is described as someone that spoke English imperfectly as other witness would probably also have done so this should be taken into consideration when we try and assess what he said or how he said it. .

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:47 AM

If anyone wishes to persist in an earlier discovery time then they need to confront these questions. I’ll keep it to 16 but there are more of course.

If Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35 and also 5 minutes before Lamb, do they really believe that Lamb arrived at the yard at 12.40? And is it acceptable for Lamb to be 20 minutes out but not for other witnesses?
If Diemschitz and Kozebrodski went for a Constable some time just after 12.40 (as claimed by Koz) how did they manage to get back to the yard at 12.35 with Spooner in tow (as per Spooner)? Or are timing errors ok when it’s suits?
What was Koz doing in the 25 or 30 minutes or so between him returning with Diemschitz (at 12.35 according to Spooner) and meeting up with Eagle and Lamb at around 1.00?
If they returned to the yard at Spooner’s 12.35 who did Brown hear shouting ‘murder’ at around 1.00? Or is it ok to suggest that Brown have been 20 minutes or so out while it’s not ok to make the same claim in regard to Kozebrodski and Heschberg?
Wouldn’t we assume that the police whistle that Heschberg heard came from close-by? Who blew it if not a PC after the body was discovered at1.00?
If Louis and Koz passed Spooner at around 12.30 when was the body found? If it had been found say 5 minutes prior to that (around 12.25) then how do you respond to these two - a) how did Louis and all of the club members decide to lie and come up with the ‘Schwartz Plan’ all in the space of 5 minutes? And b) If the body was discovered at around 12.25 resulting in a yard full of men and some of whom went running in two directions for a Constable, how could PC Smith have passed by and seen and heard nothing of this?
If the body was discovered prior to 12.30 as per the Spooner tale why do we have Kozebrodski and Heschberg saying 12.40 and 12.45? Kozebrodski and Heschberg actually contradict Spooner, they don’t support him. Why is this obvious fact ignored?
If it’s so significant that Fanny didn’t see the short Schwartz incident (supposedly on her doorstep most of the time between 12.30 and 1.00) how come it appears to be insignificant that she didn’t see Kozebrodski and Diemschitz run for a Constable or return with Spooner in tow. According to Spooner’s evidence those events would have taken place between 12.30 and 12.35 - while she was supposedly on her doorstep.
If Fanny came onto her doorstep just after PC Smith passed (around 12.30-12.35) why didn’t she see Morris Eagle return at around 12.40 or Levy for that matter?
As it’s claimed as ‘suspicious’ that Fanny didn’t hear the Schwartz incident and it’s known that Fanny heard a horse and cart around 1.00 (almost certainly Louis) why is it unimportant the she didn’t hear Louis returning earlier as you claim that he did?
If Schwartz end of the plan was to show that the non-Jewish BS man was Stride’s killer why didn’t he put the knife in his hand and not the hand of a bystander who fled the scene when he did? How can that be a part of any adult-created plan?
Do you believe that it’s good methodology to read of two or three witnesses giving times that don’t fit with the rest and then to speculate on a plot to legitimise their testimony when, without those times, we have no actual stand alone evidence for a plot? Anyone can speculate on a motive after all. I could give you a list of 10 with ease.
How could not one single member come up with a better, more reliable, less risky plan than the one suggested when better alternatives are so obvious to all?
How lucky were the plotters to not only find a person willing to lie to the police (having absolutely no level of confidence that his lie wouldn’t be uncovered [by another witness for eg]) but also a ‘witness’ who apparently had a legitimate reason for being in Berner Street that night and at that time (a reason that the police could easily have checked out)?
As we have no way of accurately assessing when Fanny was or wasn’t on her doorstep how can she be used to cast doubt on the Schwartz incident when the duration incident itself would have been just a few seconds?

And I’ll finish with one last question - can anyone believe, hand on heart, that a group of plotters could be so unutterably stupid as to put together a plan where the whole point was to incriminate a non-existent gentile BS man by having him attacking Stride and then calling out an anti-Semitic word and yet they don’t put a knife into his hands? Then, at a second interview, the knife is introduced but it’s not in the hands of their killer but in the hands of a bystander who previously had supposedly only had a pipe?

The plot falls on this point alone.

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:48 AM

So What Did Schwartz See?

We know that unlike today poorer women had far less options clothing-wise than today and so there would have been a level of similarity which could more easily lead to confusion between two women of similar build, hair colour etc than it would today. And even today we know that men aren’t the best at identifying the details of women’s clothing. We probably all have painful memories of not noticing some new item? So I’d say that it’s at least possible that he saw someone else but if he’d seen her when he said that he did then of course the chances of it being someone else are considerably reduced. Two different women attacked at the same spot within 10 minutes would very firmly be in ‘less likely’ territory. Not impossible, but less likely.

I’d also say that it’s possible that he was simply mistaken about the time that he walked down Berner Street. Maybe it was closer to12.30 or before? Perhaps the fact that she didn’t scream loudly points more to a domestic situation or some drunken horseplay with BS man calling out Lipski because he felt that Schwartz was paying them too much attention? Another option is that BS man had an altercation with Stride then left leaving the killer to step in. Again, the fact that she didn’t scream loudly might point to a level of familiarity (former client/ boyfriend etc) but of course it could simply illustrate how used to violence of varying forms that these women were. The occasional beating was sadly went with the territory. But of course, the same woman being attacked twice at the same spot pushes us to the outer reaches of unlikelihood.

So my opinion, in order of likelihood (at the moment) would be..

Schwartz saw Stride being attacked by BS man who wasn’t the ripper. (Based on the location with that side door being open)
Schwartz saw Stride being attacked by BS man the ripper.
Schwartz saw an unknown women having an altercation with BS man slightly earlier in the evening.
Schwartz saw Stride having an altercation with BS man who wasn’t her killer; with her killer arriving just as BS man left the scene.

Witnesses, like anyone else, are capable of lying but in the vast majority of cases they give their honest opinion as to what they saw. We don’t have a smidgeon of evidence that points us to Schwartz being dishonest. One person saying that they saw something that no one else did is not evidence of dishonesty; it’s the result of circumstances. And unless we believe in some vanishingly unlikely plot then why would he lie? Why place himself at the scene of an attack with no one to confirm that he wasn’t involved? It makes no sense unless we dredge up the ‘15 minutes of fame’ point (which isn’t impossible of course.) He was either correct or mistaken in my opinion. Calling him a liar requires too many baseless leaps of faith into fiction territory for my liking.

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 02:48 AM

So, was Stride killed by the ripper or not?

I’ve wavered for years on this subject but this one point pushes me toward a no.

Daily News, Oct 2nd

> The day after the murder she told the press that although the side door of the club, close to the kitchen, had been half open, she had not heard anything suspicious whatsoever: ‘I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind.’

The main sources of doubt as to whether this was a ripper murder has always been the location for me. Next to a club, near to chucking out time, with singing going on and next to a gate that opened out onto the street. Risky enough but if Mrs Diemschitz was correct and the side door had been half open I find it almost impossible to believe that the ripper would have chosen that spot to murder and mutilate. An open door spilling out light, the sound of voices from within and an outside loo presenting the possibility of someone coming outside at any time? A proven open door might be the dealbreaker on this question for me.

**JeffHamm** · 03-21-2024, 02:51 AM

Good stuff Herlock. The one point I would add is that Schwartz, whose job it was to tell the police that B.S. was a gentile, doesn't tell the police B.S. shouted Lipski at him as an insult, but rather called out to Pipeman. This suggested that Pipeman's name was Lipski, as we see was the interpretation of some officials in the home office for example. It was Abberline who suggested that he felt Schwartz got that bit wrong. If you're going to send someone to set up a false story about a gentile killer, that false story has to ensure that the killer is identified as a Gentile and not a story that implies one of the offenders (Pipeman) was possibly Jewish!

Schwartz's story to the police as he told it does the exact opposite of what a conspiracy story has to do.

- Jeff

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

Good stuff Herlock. The one point I would add is that Schwartz, whose job it was to tell the police that B.S. was a gentile, doesn't tell the police B.S. shouted Lipski at him as an insult, but rather called out to Pipeman. This suggested that Pipeman's name was Lipski, as we see was the interpretation of some officials in the home office for example. It was Abberline who suggested that he felt Schwartz got that bit wrong. If you're going to send someone to set up a false story about a gentile killer, that false story has to ensure that the killer is identified as a Gentile and not a story that implies one of the offenders (Pipeman) was possibly Jewish!

Schwartz's story to the police as he told it does the exact opposite of what a conspiracy story has to do.

- Jeff

Cheers Jeff. Yes that’s a good point. Schwartz and the interpreter (if it’s alleged that they were both dishonest) had a very simple message to put across so it’s difficult to see how they could have messed up in the way that you mention. So in the Police version we have the wrong person called Lipski then in the Star version we get the wrong man with the knife. It’s hard to think of any more fundamental errors if this was a plan.

**Herlock Sholmes** · 03-21-2024, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

So, was Stride killed by the ripper or not?

I’ve wavered for years on this subject but this one point pushes me toward a no.

Daily News, Oct 2nd

> The day after the murder she told the press that although the side door of the club, close to the kitchen, had been half open, she had not heard anything suspicious whatsoever: ‘I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind.’

The main sources of doubt as to whether this was a ripper murder has always been the location for me. Next to a club, near to chucking out time, with singing going on and next to a gate that opened out onto the street. Risky enough but if Mrs Diemschitz was correct and the side door had been half open I find it almost impossible to believe that the ripper would have chosen that spot to murder and mutilate. An open door spilling out light, the sound of voices from within and an outside loo presenting the possibility of someone coming outside at any time? A proven open door might be the dealbreaker on this question for me.

A point that I forgot to mention concerning the door is that perhaps it might have been this that disturbed the killer? It could have been someone going to the outside loo but as it was left open it’s perhaps more likely that it was left open intentionally - perhaps to let in air? So it may have been the simple fact of the door opening that might have disturbed the killer as opposed to the return of Diemschitz? This is only ‘if’ the killer was disturbed of course; I’m not assuming that he was disturbed.

**Abby Normal** · 03-21-2024, 11:17 AM

hi herlock
i see you have been busy during your time off! lol. welcome back

**c.d.** · 03-21-2024, 12:57 PM

Hello Herlock,

Welcome back, sir. Welcome back. You were sorely missed.

The level of discourse falls when you are not on the boards.

Now try to behave!

c.d.

Announcement

Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

Berner Street: No Plot, No Mystery

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment